Saturday, December 23, 2017

Merry Christmas! The Savior has been born! Allow me to offer you an incendiary spark of edification to aid you in the kindling of your Yuletide log. Did you know that when He was born, all of the sodomites in the world died? Yup.

So says one of our canonized saints, St. Bonaventure, in his Twenty-Second Sunday Sermon about the Nativity. In fact, he states this fact in agreeance with yet another saint, St. Jerome himself:

All sodomites, men and women, died all over the earth, as Saint Jerome said commenting on the verse Lux orta est iusto [The light was born for the just] (Ps 96:11). This was to make it clear that He [Jesus Christ] was born to reform nature and to promote chastity.

What a joy to all of the normies this must be! What an edifying relief it must have been for the people of that day who were plagued by purveyors of sexual deviancy! These people bore witness to God Himself carrying out the full sentence of Levitical Law. The Almighty did not wait for men on Earth to get around to administering justice. Had the judges and executioners of the worlds kingdoms done their duty, there would be no mess for God to cleanse in the first place.

But, indeed, God did not want one single sodomite alive on the day His Son was to be received into the world--so detestable is that sin. When it came to His baby boy, there would be neither patience nor tolerance for any men who failed to control their disordered fetishes. Instead, this diseased rabble was swiftly removed. The global community was relieved of a burden, and in this regard society was allowed a fresh start.

Further Considerations and Questions

This information leaves me with a few questions. For starters, does this mean that all people with sodomitical tendencies were wiped out by God? Or was it only those engaged in the actual act of sodomy at that moment who were killed? If God was killing off this particular stripe of sexual deviants, how current would they have to have been with their sex act to be considered by God as a sodomite?

Did God dispatch anyone who had ever committed sodomy in their life? So, for example, let's say an idiot got curious when he was sixteen, carried out sodomy, but then after that one criminal encounter he lived a straight life, mind and body, until he was sixty years old. And then, when that fellow was sixty, Christ was born. Would that sixty-year old man have been purged from the world on that day?

Also, what about people who were wrestling against the desire for sodomy? What if there were men and women who on one level wanted to become queer, but they were fighting it to the best of their ability? Did they fall under the category of sodomite, and were they purged?

Yet still, another question: which act on that day was considered sodomitical by God? Hemorrhoid-inducing anal sex, surely, put a man under the sodomite banner. But St. Bonaventure says that "both male and female" sodomites died. So, most certainly those who had inclinations towards bestiality and necrophilia died. But in this case, did God consider oral sex to be sodomy, as did many previous saints? What about masturbation, another form of sodomy? Did God kill off the wankers, too?

If it is true that all sodomites died when Christ was born, we can come to some conclusions. For example, provided that St. Bonaventure and St. Jerome are correct, we can safely assume that all historical figures who lived through the birth of Jesus were not considered by God to be sodomites at the time of the Nativity.

Furthermore, we can safely assume that if our Lord eradicated sodomy from the earth on that day, there was then not much of a habit for it among the world's population. In none of the histories do we hear of a sudden, massive, inexplicable die-off of sodomites around 1 AD. But consider the idea that if all the sodomites were to suddenly die this Christmas, imagine how much the world would be emptied! Would the clergy in the Vatican only number in the single digits? What percentage of Americans would be left alive? Would the gay Jew capital of the world, Tel Aviv, become suddenly unpopulated? How much of today's global population would die off in such an event?

Whatever the case may have been, should Sts. Bonaventure and Jerome be correct in what they say about this matter, it then therefore means that God himself will have personally seen to the execution of sodomites in at least four instances on the Earth. He purged them with the Great Deluge, at Sodom and Gomorrah, at Christ's birth, and He will do so again during the Great Chastisement. With such a rank and horrible sin that cries out to Heaven for such vengeance, why in the world would anyone freely choose to fall into this crime, let alone boldly luxuriate in it?

More Fascinating Nativity Trivia

The death of sodomites is not the only thing that St. Bonaventure mentioned in his 22nd Sunday Sermon at Lyon. Just as there were odd happenings around the time of Christ's resurrection--such as spontaneous healings and the dead rising and walking throughout Jerusalem--so, too, were there other odd and fun things occurring when Jesus was born. For example, in the East, three suns appeared in the sky and merged into one, brute animals began speaking in Judea, and a demonic prophecy about Rome's Temple of Peace came to be fulfilled.

Another fun tidbit that we can derive from his sermon is the idea that at the Nativity, everything was a symbol to some degree, and I am specifically talking about what the ox and the ass represent. The ox and the ass, both knelt and adored the Christ Child, signifying the Jews and the Gentiles respectively. As if we goyim didn't have enough problems, now we see we're compared to asses! Oh well. Hopefully, the majority of us are not sodomizing them.

St. Bonaventure's 22nd Sunday Sermon At Lyon

For further clarification that this sermon is real, check out more facts about this at Tradition In Action.

Bless, O my soul, the Lord who liberated Jerusalem, His city, from its many tribulations, He the Lord our God. Confess the Lord, O children of Israel, for He has shown His majesty to a sinful nation. (Tobias 13:19/3/7)

Moved by a great devotion of heart for today’s celebration, the soul of each one of the faithful should bless and confess God for His great works, exalting the men of Israel and the elect of Jerusalem ,as seen in the 24 considerations of the meditation on today’s feast set forth briefly in the Gospel of Christmas Eve. Four considerations are on God the Father, four on God the Son, four on the Blessed Mother, four on Joseph, four on the Shepherds and four on the Angels.

We should consider and bless God the Father for His most admirable liberality in sending His Son to take flesh and be born; and praise His fidelity for fulfilling His promise in the due time, His ineffable charity because He had compassion on us and was thus pleased to help us, and His eternal goodness because He wanted to make himself known to us in this way.

Regarding the Son being born, we should consider and bless His admirable and dignified benignity, imitate His promptitude in obeying the Father and His pity and incredible clemency toward us, and appreciate His submissive poverty, humility and simplicity.

As for the Mother who gave birth, we should consider and bless her immaculate virginity and glorious fecundity, the singularity of her delivery and the generosity of her fortunate and joyful childbirth.

On the part of Joseph, we should consider and bless his profound reverence, enormous justice, dedicated compliance and indefectible charity.

On the part of the Shepherds, we should consider and bless their holy simplicity, pious joyfulness, praiseful solicitude and their expanding faith and devotion.

On the part of the Angels, we should consider and bless the clarity of their omnipresent grandeur, the intimacy of their new tenderness, the learnedness of their preaching and the purity and sublimity of their new praises.

In all these meditations our souls should bless God, on this day.

On this day, He liberated His city showing His majesty to a sinful nation, not only by sending His Son to be born, but by bedecking and adorning the day, hour and time of His Nativity with miracles.

The miracles shown to the sinful nation at the time of the Nativity of Christ are these, according to various histories.

First, a fulgent star appeared in the sky in parts of the East, which displayed the form of a most pure Infant, and over it was a shining cross to signify that He who was born would spread His doctrine, life and death throughout the whole world.

Second, in the middle of the day from Capitoline Hill in Rome, a golden circle that appeared near the sun was seen – [also] by the Emperor and the Sibyl – and in it was a most pure Virgin giving birth to an Infant, signifying that He who was born was the Monarch of the world and came to demonstrate the splendor of the paternal glory and figure of His substance.

Third, the temple of peace in Rome fell to the ground. When it was built, the devils were asked how long it would last, and they responded that it would stand until a Virgin gave birth to a Son, as a sign that He who was born would destroy the works and practices of vanity.

Fourth, in Rome a large gush of oil sprung up from the ground and flowed into the Tiber, to show that a source of piety and mercy had been born.

Fifth, on the night of the Nativity, the vinae Engaddi, from which perfume is made, sprouted, flourished, extended its branches and produced its scented liquid, to show that He who was born would make the spiritual world flourish, grow and give fruits, and that its fragrance would attract the whole world.

Sixth, 30,000 criminals were killed by the Emperor, to show that He who was born would subject the whole world by His Faith and that the rebels would be lost in Hell.

Seventh, all the sodomites in the whole world died, both male and female, according to Jerome commenting on the Psalm: The light was born for the just, which shows that He who was born came to reform nature and to promote chastity.

Eighth, brute animals spoke in Judea, among them, two oxen, to make us understand that He who was born would transform the most bestial men into rational persons.

Ninth, all the idols of Egypt were destroyed when the Virgin gave birth; according to Jeremiah that sign was given to the Egyptians to make them understand that He who was born was the true God and the only One worthy of adoration with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Tenth, when the Infant was laying in the Manger, the ox and donkey knelt before Him, as if they had reason, and adored Him, which makes us understand that He who was born would call both the Jews and the Gentiles to His religion.

Eleventh, the whole world was in peace as described, to show that He who was born would love and promote universal peace and that His elect would enjoy eternal peace.

Twelfth, in the East three suns appeared in the sky, which progressively merged into a single celestial body to show that by the birth of Christ the world would be informed of the Triune God, and that Divinity, spirit and flesh had been united in one Person.About all these things, our souls should bless God and venerate Him because He liberated us and His majesty was shown to us, a sinful nation.

The Lord Jesus was born in the 5,199th year after the constitution of the world, after the constitution of the 750 gens of the City [of Rome], in the year of the 194th Olympics, in the 42nd year of Emperor Octavianus Augustus, in the 39th year of the reign of Herod of Ascalon in Judea, on the 8th day of the Kalendas of January, having Cyrenius as governor of Syria.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

I've been having some thoughts about this week. Tonight is Krampus Night. Tomorrow (Dec 6) is St. Nicholas Day. If you've got kids, these sorts of things matter.

Last Tradhican, over at Cathinfo yesterday, took the time to remind us that the Advent Wreath originated as a Protestant invention. It's a fascinating story, and I recommend you read about it.

But the whole line of thought that he brought up merely reminds me of how Catholics latch onto the things of the fallen world around them, baptize them to one extent or another, and then it becomes institutionalized in Christian culture. I certainly don't mind it. I like it. So does everyone else who enjoys Christmas trees. These things become efficacious for us as we seek to adore Christ.

You can go in a few directions with this kind of knowledge. Firstly, you can just accept the fact that human beings latch onto the ideas of other human beings, and we drag cultural things along and turn it into a part of our patrimony. I'm often content to simply do that.

Another direction is for people to sink into purity spiral arguments. Some will argue that "the advent wreath isn't Catholic enough" or some such thing, or that this tradition comes from this region, and that tradition comes from that area, and you can find yourselves arguing with purists. Such people will argue with you: "The reindeer, goat, and dwarven imagery is pure Scandinavian, and it was imagery that was there in the pure pagan days, long before Christianity!" I was in a conversation a few years ago with a friend who tried picking a fight with me about this very thing a few years ago, and it bored me to death.

And really, there's so many contributions to the Christmas phenomenon that I don't think the world is finished absorbing and deciding what to do with all of the stuff that has percolated and coalesced during the centuries.

I mean, I don't think that the world is going to rush out to start the poop log tradition any time soon. Nor do I believe that we're about to see a great rush of people to put on blackface and start helping Santa Clause pass out candy in broad daylight (though I can easily see this as some sort of hilariously witty, controversial, deviant political act on the part of college agitators).

But who knows? Who knows what traditions will make their way out of the various climes of the world? Anything is possible with the internet. I've been quite surprised by what I've learned about Christmas in the last five years. None of this would have been possible for me without the internet. Sure, there's always been books about this stuff out there somewhere. But now? This sort of trivia is really accessible to us.

I for one love the various weird things I've been learning about how other folks do Advent and Christmas celebrations. In fact, I think it'd be awesome to erect our own Gävle Goat here in my town, and shoot it to death with roman candles on Krampus Night. We could throw in an effigy of the Devil while we sip on a nice flask of hot liquor. I suppose we could have St. Nicholas parade around the party and give out chocolate gold coins to the kiddies, while someone in a Krampus suit stalks around to instill fear into their hearts.

But before I end this post, I've really gotta say something about this phenomenon called the Krampus Walk. Admittedly, these things look cool as Hell. Literally. It's one of my guilty pleasures to watch these parades coming out of Europe. I'm a fantasy fiction writer, and I love a good villain. I even bought a Krampus ornament last year. It's funny for me.

But, uh, be that as it may--it sorta looks like St. Nicholas is the king of demons with these Krampus Walks. If I were a bettin' man, I'd say that the Devil himself is trying to appeal to people's baser desires with the Krampus phenomenon.

Ought there not be only one Christmas Devil? Granted, the alpine climes that Krampus originates from have a rich history of mischievous devils and imps that stem back to their pagan history. But I would contend that Christmas is to be a symbol of God's triumphs, for the most part. Having a Christmas parade filled with anthropomorphic beast demons sort of extols...well, demons. I mean, you gotta ask yourself, with a Krampus Walk, are people celebrating a saint, or are they celebrating how cool the furry devils look?

In fact, seeing as how Oklahoma is set to be on track as being a satanist cultural center (courtesy of our infamous black masses on public property, and accompanying lackluster emphasis on spiritual exorcism combat)--I would hazard to guess that we might even see some sort of a Krampus Walk funded by the Church of Satan in coming years. Call me crazy, it's just a prediction. But I look at these videos of the Krampus Walks, and it's easy to see where this could go.

Time will tell.

For now, the week that features St. Nicholas Day is one of my favorite weeks of the year. It gins up all sorts of speculation and wonder for me. Come to think of it, I got a couple of new ideas for that imaginary Advent party I was thinking about earlier. We could have someone else dressed up as St. Lucy. And perhaps we could even have a re-enactment of the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe. All in one big sort of festival.

Tonight, I rented and watched Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.

After watching this film, and recalling what I saw in The Fifth Element a few years ago, I've come to a few conclusions.

The first and most obvious conclusion that comes to my mind is the fact that both Valerian and 5th Element despise male aggression. Potent, masculine, unapologetic virility is, in fact, vilified in the antagonists of these two movies. In Valerian, they choose to have an out-of-control 5-star English general be the bad guy. In that movie, the general was eager to fight a war over a planet inhabited by primitives aka "noble savages", and the rubble from the battle destroyed their planet. In 5th Element, the bad guy was an arms dealer who spoke with an American accent who was reckless in getting what he wanted. Both antagonists in both movies were white, violent, portrayed as reckless, careless, unloving caricatures.

As for the heroes, in both movies, the protagonists are heroic and daring. But their heroism is caged in a certain way. Their path is controlled by the boundaries set by the androgynous society they live in within each film. They can "be all they can be," but within certain limits. Each hero seems to have some sort of a collar on that keeps him effectively neutered in a certain sense.

The second thing I've concluded is that both Valerian and 5th Element loves androgyny. These two movies love to blur the lines between what makes a man or a woman. The 5th Element, for example, if filled with effeminate, gay-looking men, including Chris Tucker's character Ruby Rhod. At the end of Valerian, the emperor, though a male, has the voice of an English actress. And like The Fifth Element, Valerian is filled with effeminate side characters who could easily be assumed to be sodomites. The main protagonist, Valerian himself, seems masculine, but he spent the entire film with a female alien in his mind--a plot point the movie makes sure to remind us about a few times. I can feel the director's smirk. Quite creepy.

Finally, at the end of both The Fifth Element as well as Valerian, the good guys can only win if they "give in to love." In 5th Element, Bruce Willis' character has to come to terms with loving the alien girl Leeloo. Once he proclaims his love for her, she is able to let go, and turn her body into a light show that somehow saves the day from evil. In Valerian, the protagonist has to be lectured by his love interest, and he is told that if he is going to truly express love, he has to turn in a rare alien species to the "noble savages" he's worked to discover. And only by doing the right thing, and giving in to love, will his partner agree to marry him.

Conclusion

Both Valerian and The 5th Element are visually stunning. All the better to reel you in, my dear. Once in, you can be spoon fed a world of misandry, effeminacy, and a kind of "love conquers all" emotionalism that you typically can listen to on FM radio's pop stations.

These two films are the products of European minds. When it comes to science fiction, this is what Europe has to offer, it seems. When it comes to world-building in this day and age, the Europeans are only capable of extolling the most twisted, utopian, effeminate ideals imaginable. If these films were a signal of where European culture was headed, I'd say it's to the gutter. I watch a film like this, and I say to myself "My God, they're damned soft," and it comes as no surprise to me that the entire continent is being taken over by invaders who could give a damn about their perverted deviancy.

Surely I'm wrong. Somebody, please, correct me. Surely there's pockets of good writing and good talent over there who ardently desire to produce good science fiction without the faggotry. I hear Eastern Europe is a bit tougher than Western Europe. Hungary's cool, from what I read. But honestly, this spectacle I watched tonight seemed like an ill omen.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

John C. Wright, Catholic science fiction writer and blogger, dislikes monarchy. While much of his commentary about politics and culture are spot on, his disagreement with the monarchical tradition continues to surprise Catholic fans of the Social Kingship of Christ.In July of 2017, Wright penned a blog post titled “Unanswered Equality Challenge.” For the most part, Wright expressed disappointment in the responses to his challenge. To this day, he remains against the institution of monarchy, extolling our Americanist democratic republic over that form of government.

My purpose with this series is to answer the “Unanswered Equality Challenge” in full, responding not only to his main challenge question, but also responding to many claims in his essay.

I speculate that this series is unlikely to convert Wright to be convinced of monarchy’s superiority. That being said, as a fan of Wright’s writing, I cannot help but feel duty-bound to use my talents to produce some kind of a public response to his claims. This I will now do.- - - - - - - - - -

Just to remind readers, in my last article in this series, we discussed how John C. Wright believes a man has a right to speak folly and error. He believes everyone should have access to a free press.

A poor man has the same natural right to own his hovel as the rich man his mansion, and your natural freedom of speech is not less or more if you speak folly or wisdom.

This is wrong.

Everyone does not have a right to speak folly and error. Not everyone should have access to a free press. However, in these troubled times that we live in, these things are willy-nilly available to any reckless person with a keyboard. Including yours truly. Be that as it may, I'll continue.

In the previous article, I discussed how this idea of "uncontrolled enjoyment of the rights and privileges of the Law of Nature" stems from John Locke, and according to him, we are to adhere to a doctrine of perpetual war, in which we destroy our enemies whenever we can, serving as executioners of the Law of Nature. I've also pointed out that free speech isn't even real, that speech MUST be painted onto a canvas of what is silenced--an idea that pretty much throws dirt in John Locke's eyes.

So, there's two options when it comes to allowing speech:

Option #1. Pretend that everyone should be able to say what they want, say it whenever they want, and fight their opposition, and that's free speech.

Option #2. Free speech isn't real. There must be something excluded from social commerce.

The Left has come at "free speech" from both angles, demonstrating their dishonesty and the complete recklessness of the idea as a whole.

Leftists Used The Idea of "Free Speech" To Win Ground In The 20th Century

The idea that the Left was all about people having a right to free speech is nothing new to most readers of this blog. However, perhaps a few years from now, more of the reading audience will have been born after the turn of the century. It may very well be that the next generation will have no idea the depth of treachery the Left sunk to between 1900 and 1999.

Basically, the Left screamed for their right to have free speech throughout last century.

The nearly hegemonic influence of relativist conceptions of democracy in mid twentieth-century liberal circles contributed to the contemporaneous expansion of the civil libertarian constitutional defense of free speech.

-Mark Graber, Transforming Free Speech

Cultural Leftists have always been relativists who've put no stock into morality or religion. In the beginning, they could only gain to benefit by having a voice. "We have a right to have our say!" they would argue. From liberal hippies of the Berkeley era to the faggots of the later part of the century, having a right to Constitutionally-protected free speech was a magical idea that opened many doors for the Left that can now never be shut again.

By 1964 student radicals all over the United States were far along the path of political agitation, and attempts from any quarter to restrict their activities would naturally elicit their strong resistance. In this sense, free speech was the real issue in the FSM [Freedom of Speech Movement] but not only because free speech was valued in the abstract; free speech was also fundamental to the purpose of building a radical youth movement that could, along with the Civil Rights Movement, change America. In this way the FSM is part of the American tradition of left-wing civil liberties advocacy that stretches back to the free speech fights of the IWW [Industrial Workers of the World] in the early twentieth century. Typically in the 1960s this issue was phrased in terms of democracy.

-Doug Rossinow, The Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s

Yes, indeed, there was a thing called The Free Speech Movement. And it was used to great effect. Berkeley is known for being ground zero when it comes to having a right to be heard. The Left has made many gains from the idea that they can shout out whatever troubles them.

And, really, the Left has taken an inch and run a mile. Whatever whim they have must become Law. All of society must accept whatever perversion or deviancy they concoct, and only bigots would disagree with them. Verily, only those who agree with them, endorse them, and celebrate Leftist degeneracy are fit to live.

The Left takes John Locke's advice. They punish the offender. They are the executioner of John Locke's "Law of Nature." The Left agrees with Locke that they have "a title to perfect freedom" and "uncontrolled enjoyment." "Free speech" has served them well, and they used the concept for all it was worth, sucking the marrow out of it. "Free Speech" was an effective weapon, enabling them to create legions of followers to serve as uncontrollable agents of chaos in every quarter of society.

In the 20th Century, the Left went with Option #1. Here in the 21st Century, the Left is shifting their strategy to Option #2: the reality that free speech is an impossible fantasy.

When conservatives appeal to “free speech,” it is actually a calculated political move, designed to open up avenues of political discourse while shaming others from moving in active political opposition.

This is true. The Right wants to overcome the Left, and vice-versa. They are both always fighting. It's not rocket science. And of course, the Right wants to have the ability to speak in order to extol their viewpoint and put down the viewpoint of their opponents. Water is wet, what else is new? I wonder if anyone on the Right said this about the Free Speech Movement coming out of Berkeley in the 60s? (Send it my way if you find something.)

Previously in the article, Born says the following:

In its own way, "free speech" has become conservatives' rhetorical weapon of choice, defended by right-leaning groups and thinkers both on and off campus.

Ha! What hypocrisy! This is precisely what the Left has been doing for over a century! So deliciously wicked. Are they not perfect villains? Their shamelessness knows no bounds! Let's hear more from the undergraduate:

Indeed, there is something insulting and condescending about conservative appeals to free speech, and appeals to “free speech” make conservative arguments sound weak. It is as if they think, “If only the poor children listened to our ideas! If they didn’t simply reject our ideas out of hand, they would be listened to! We are right!” This, of course, ignores an obvious possibility: that conservative ideas have been listened to, that they have been weighed, and that they have been rejected. If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of “free speech.”

Once more, Born rambles on either neglectfully ignorant of the Leftist's use of the Free Speech Movement, or he's simply disingenuous and is now ignoring the Left's "appeals to free speech" throughout the past 100 years. The exact same criticism could have been leveled at the Left's protests and arguments last century. Heck, those criticisms may have been utilized by the Right. Although, to my knowledge, the history of the Right in the past has been that they've sold out every. Single. Time.

When dealing with ultra-conservative factions (those on the alternative right, such as Nazis or white supremacists), “free speech,” or speech without fierce and unrelenting opposition, must be rejected entirely. There is no need to hear the arguments of hate, to engage in a “dialogue,” or to “hear the other side.”

Born is on a roll. Unrelenting opposition "must be rejected entirely." He's got it. He's correct. Born is right. The Leftist is correct, and it's the Right that is 20-30 years behind. Stanley Fish backs up Ryan Born in his interview with the Australian Humanities Review:

"[F]ree speech cannot be permitted to flourish. The “free speech zone” emerges against the background of what has been excluded. Everyone begins by assuming what shouldn’t be said; otherwise there would be no point in saying anything.”

The kid is right on this issue. Something must be excluded from social discourse. Something must be taboo. I think his whole recourse to blaming these Nazis, white supremacists, unicorns, elves, and space aliens is ridiculous, please let me know when you see one of these mythological creatures. But other than that bit of ignorance, I agree with the degenerate Leftist. Appealing to free speech is silly. And Born is on the cusp of figuring this out.

The Left has run with the ball of "free speech." Now, they're going to switch it up and stop pretending in the golden legend of John Locke. There is no natural right to free speech. The Left desires to go into full attack mode, and they will no longer play the weeping victim that simply wants to have their say. Instead, they will quash and destroy all who oppose them. Little by little, the voices of their opposition--the Right--will become atomized and powerless. The Left plays a fantastic game, and the Right simply cannot keep up. The Right is still fumbling around, trying to play by the rules. In fact, the Right is still trying to figure out what the rules of this game are. It's quite sad and embarrassing.

Even more embarrassing for Constitutionalist right-wing American Catholics--such as John C. Wright--is the fact that Catholic tradition also holds that speech ought not be free.

We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which — as We have before said and must again and again repeat — it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man’s free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known.

Once again, it is important to know what Pope Leo XIII means when he speaks about true liberty. As I've said before, true liberty enables us to seek God without the burdens of wicked influences. Having an across-the-board playing field when it comes to free speech pits the populace against itself. There can be no true equality with speech. Furthermore, equality is different from liberty, and liberty is different from licence. True liberty under a Catholic monarch gives everybody room for healthy expression. Unbridled license destroys society, as we see in the worsening moral wasteland that is America.

Again, while I probably disagree with The Daily Princetonian's Ryan Born on most everything, I can agree with his assessment about free speech, and I can agree with his suggestion to conservatives:

For conservatives, I honestly believe they are better off evaluating and reshaping their arguments rather than resorting to the argument of “free speech.” They are better off without it.

Why aren't we taking Ryan Born's advice? Why cannot the Right stop trying to figure out the rules from 30 years ago, and realize the overall problem? Why can't the Right re-evaluate this idea of free speech, clinging to it like a old moldy doll from childhood? Is the Intellectual Right incapable of questioning John Locke? Are they incapable of considering the words of a pope? Do they really think that the idea of an American restoration is feasible at this point?

How long will the Right continue to believe in an America of apple pies and baseball?

Error has no rights. Free speech does not exist, and it cannot exist. It is an impossibility. It is an illusion that was first weaponized by the Left, and is now cast off as they launch into a new phase of censorship. This Americanist concept of free expression has been the gateway for legions of radicals. If the Right had the upper hand before, they certainly do not now. As long as they continue to live in a fantasy, the Left will continue to have the upper hand.